W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > December 2002

Re: checked RDF semantics for XSD stuff, couldn't grok namespace entailment

From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 12:05:49 -0600
Message-Id: <p05111b1eba21218986b4@[10.0.100.86]>
To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

>At 01:31 14/12/2002 -0600, pat hayes wrote:
>>Brian, Dan makes some good points that would be best fixed. How 
>>much of a disaster would it be if I were to give you a revised 
>>snapshot by say Monday EOW my time (evening your time)??
>
>I'm out of the office from Monday lunchtime till Wed night at a 
>conference.  I think I'll have wireless access there, but can't be 
>certain.  Eric may be able to fill in I have problems.
>
>Looks like Dan has identified some must fixes so an update is 
>necessary.  I suggest you go ahead but resist the urge to polish 
>that which doesn't really need it.

OK, I take your point. When done (probably late tonight) it will be 
on my website with the ending _2 instead of _1,  I'll leave the older 
one there.

>  I'll put the current version in CVS and we can always examine the 
>diffs, presuming there are not too many.
>
>>All the changes will be link-fixings and small text-edits, nothing 
>>earthshaking. I also plan to call out formal technical definitions, 
>>give them all anchors and put in links from every term use to a 
>>glossary entry or definition, throughout the text.
>
>I agree that giving the technical definitions anchors is a good 
>thing, but I'd rather have stability in the document right now. 
>There will be an update after last call - could that be done then?

Yes. Those later changes will be more to style than to content.

>We are now into change control.  My mental model is that the WG have 
>to review the last call document.  We need to review that document, 
>not something that is nearly that document.  I don't want to get to 
>the last call decision and have folks say the doc's changed too much.
>
>I recommend you stick to must fixes only.

OK, will do. Content re-edits and fix broken links only.

The big content issue is whether plain literals are XSD strings. That 
needs to be decided, soon, and may require changes in several 
documents. I plan to simply be conspicuously agnostic on this issue 
in this draft of the semantics, by deleting the paragraph that Dan 
objects to. However I don't think that we should go to last call with 
this an open issue, I'd like to get it clear one way or the other. I 
predict that Dan C and Patrick will be at odds over this one. I have 
no axe to grind on this, but as editor Id rather the document was 
clear on the point.

Pat



-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola              			(850)202 4440   fax
FL 32501           				(850)291 0667    cell
phayes@ai.uwf.edu	          http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
s.pam@ai.uwf.edu   for spam
Received on Saturday, 14 December 2002 13:05:53 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:54:54 EDT